Piers Morgan is an obnoxious twit with a habit of being condescending and snippy.

However, I disagreed with the petition to have Mr. Morgan deported. He can say whatever he wants, same as Mr. Jones. In the case of him saying
certain things on national TV, I as a viewer have a right to express my displeasure to CNN.

I also have the option to NOT watch Piers Morgan on television, and I choose to exercise that right.

I did think the petiton to deport Mr. Snippy-Britches was kind of silly, and I did not support it. Piers can stand in Times Square butt nekkid while
he steps on the flag and burns the a copy of constitution for all I care. He's just a ratings whore. I won't be watching him.

People like him tend to dry up and blow away as soon as enough people get tired of his attitude and realize his only talent is to provoke negative
responses.

LOL, thank you....and I am a female. I don't drink (cannot tolerate it), but if you buy me some chocolate I'll be your new best friend.

Seriously, as a first generation American, I can remember my parents voicing their opinions, and being told to "go back where you came from", as if
not being born here somehow made them exempt from First Amendment rights (although they were naturalized citizens by that time).

So, I don't care where somebody comes from, if they want to blow hot air and be a windbag, it is their right as a thinking person. I don't have to
agree with them, and I don't have to listen, but I will not advocate for their silence.

Originally posted by Southern Guardian
In the aftermath of Alex Jones' disastrous interview with Piers Morgan on CNN, many of his sore sympathizers have made it more so apparent that they
want him deported out of the country. There was a petition made where 100,000 folks signed demanding Piers be departed, 100,000 individuals whom
can't handle an exercise of rights when it doesn't include them only. "He's not a citizen" they shout! "He's anti-american" they shout, as if
these reasons justify silencing him. So what does the first amendment actually say?

AMENDMENT I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or
of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

The fact that the Framers chose to limit to citizens only the
rights to vote and to run for federal office is one indication that
they did not intend other constitutional rights to be so limited.
Accordingly, the Supreme Court has squarely stated that neither
the First Amendment nor the Fifth Amendment "acknowledges
any distinction between citizens and resident aliens."

In the first amendment regarding freedom of speech, it says nothing about citizens, it mentions people, this extends to American residents and
those whom are legally residing in the country.

Even if Piers did not share the same first amendment rights with American citizens, the fact many are crying to have him deported because they
disagreed with him shows a complete lack of respect to the rights we are afforded in this country, it also shows a loser mentality. People can't deal
with what he says, so they want him taken away, and they want everybody to only listen to what they have to say and what rights they
have.

There is a segment of the population in this country that are becoming increasingly tyrannical in their line of thinking, it's becoming evidently
clear what kind of American the kind of people who sympathize with Alex Jones envision

When a democratic election does not go your way? Secede from the Union. Take your toys and leave because it didn't go your way.

When somebody says something you don't like on their air? Silence them, deport them, kick them out of the country.

When rulings like Lawrence v Texas, Brown v Board of education and Loving v Virginia reinforce rights afforded to individual Americans, cry foul and
an injustice to states rights, completely ignore the rights of the individual.

Maybe it's time people also start looking into the mirror when they talk about tyranny, control, fascism.

edit on 13-1-2013 by Southern Guardian because: (no reason given)

This is a dumb thread. The first amendment prohibits the government from limiting free speech, it doesn't apply to citizens.

We're exercising our first amendment rights to protest the garbage Morgan is spewing, and let CNN know we're not interested.

You didn't answer my first question - Lots of us want to stop the results of Sharia law in other countries. Do we not have the right to
articulate those beliefs?

Yes, but that's because of how oppressed the women are under Sharia law. Just like how oppressed us Americans are by this scum bags statements. Once
we're disarmed it's over.

If we have the right to say something about another country's laws, I'm missing why he doesn't have the right to say something about ours?

It seems to me you are blurring the line between being right and having a right...

I agree. Though I enjoy the news and antics of AJ, I find him hypocritical in this regard and don't think his attack on the 1st and on P.M. and
regarding 'others'. bodes well with his own spoken ideas.

What I don't get is that PM isn't even a citizen yet and is still going through the immigration system therefore it is only rational that he is and
should be protected under the Consitution and the Bill of Rights. Butbut, I don't believe that he has the right to incite nor cause disruption
to a constitution that allows him these rights. As natural born citizens or those who have completed and have been sworn in know ....those rights (and
privilleges) are there for a reason.

Honestly, who is he to arrive her on his mission under the guise of his job as an 'entertainer' to even be able to rile up political discourse of this
calibre?? Has he not heard of the term 'When in Rome....."?

Unless he has paid a lot of money (illegally) to immigration to speed up his process...I believe that during this waiting period one can impede their
status if they break the conditions.

He is guilty (for one) of Agitprop: en.wikipedia.org... or Agitation:
Methods of Deploying Agitation Propaganda

[edit] Agent of Influence

An agent of influence is an agent of some stature who uses his or her position to influence public opinion or decision making to produce results
beneficial to the country whose intelligence service operates the agent.[20] They can be used to place the various forms of agitation propaganda
mediums in places of influence such as government agencies, the media, and other avenues by which popular opinion is formed or born from.

[edit] Media Exploitation and Control

The control of media has become a common practice in states seeking to sustain undemocratic rule over its citizens. Mass media forms the opinions of
entire societies, as such, without the mass media there can be no modern propaganda.[21] In order to become successful tools of agitation propaganda,
the media must be under central control, disseminating the party line, and they must be diversified in their products.[22]

[edit] Forgeries

Is the process of making, adapting, or imitating objects, statistics, or documents with the intent to deceive. Forgeries are used to stimulate
opinions in the target based on false information. During the Cold War era, the [U.S.S.R.]’s intelligence service, the [KGB], was able to convince
many leaders of the Third World, that the CIA was targeting them by forging U.S. Government documents.[23]

"Sun Tzu. Sun Tzu wrote in The Art of War that the best way to achieve this was by establishing a moral influence over the populace that would place
them in harmony with the will of the political leadership.[8] This moral influence is a political phenomenon that creates a willingness among the
population to put the their needs second to that of the needs of the government, even to the extreme of laying down their lives.[9] To achieve this
moral influence, governments typically use agitation propaganda, which demonizes the enemy and places the individual in a state of extreme hatred
towards the barbarity of his enemy.

Agitation propaganda is also used in times of war against the enemy to weaken their war making capabilities. Sun Tzu theorized that if a general is
choleric his authority can easily be upset. His character is not firm. If the enemy general is obstinate and prone to anger, insult and enrage him, so
that he will be irritated and confused, and without a plan will recklessly advance against you." (sound familiar in what Piers Morgan did to Alex
Jones to evoke emotion from both AJ but the viewers).

Under the Domestic Terrorist list of Patriot Act (since Piers wants to enjoy having the same rights and protection of others) and Under current United
States law, set forth in the USA PATRIOT Act, acts of domestic terrorism are those which: "(A) involve acts dangerous to human life that are a
violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State; (B) appear to be intended— (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian
population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass
destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and (C) occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States."[3]

"President Andrew Jackson said the “Constitution, which was established for the benefit of our own, not of a foreign people: if in the latter, then,
like other citizens or people resident within the limits of the States, they are subject to their jurisdiction and control.”

if you don't like it Piers, GO HOME. GO home to become the town crier against violence in your own country...instead of * disturbing in someone
else's. Like the saying goes...clearn your own backyard!!

*also, I have no doubt that without the second amendment in place and entact the next to go would BE the First Amendment.

In my opinion, if an authority treats non-citizens any differently than the average citizen, than it is immoral. Just because someone is from across
the pond does not mean their right to speak is any less valid.

In my opinion, if an authority treats non-citizens any different than average citizens, it is immoral. Just because someone is from across the pond
does not mean their right to speak is any less valid.

Sure makes a good arguement but if NDAA threatens to lock up certain American citizens who were born under the flag and the Constitution for uttering
comments or processing propoganda that is anti-constitutional (in their DHS opinion) then who is one residing here as a guest, perhaps on a temporary
work visa and who has full access to the most heavily viewed media outlet in the world let along the US to use (sorry, MISUSE) that platform for
consitutional debate. One can also view the video that he and his guests mockingly concur to kill (uttering a threat) to an American citizen--which
is also illegal under not only the immigration act but they are libel and promoting a fear based bias which incites violence.

Also PM, is is no average non-citizen. That would be the day that a Mexican man would have the primetime slot on CNN and if were to snub the
constitution and claim it needs revision after being within the US borders for a year and some there would be an uproar and ruckus.

How is he getting away with this?? Whyyy is he getting away with this? If this happened 20 years ago he would be off the air within 4 minutes of
broadcast.

Anyway I don’t like either AJ or PM and I pro-gun but that comment was not a threat. AJ is just being oversensitive about it or maybe it is his
followers but the reason no one’s doing anything is that the majority of people know it wasn’t a threat.

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.